Go back
Favourite numerical sequences

Favourite numerical sequences

General

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

weird topic alert

Im trying to make a list of fascinating numerical sequences as part of a display in a classroom. I like sequences such as Fibonacci and Triangular sequences but any different ones that people like on here?

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

i've been fascinated by prime numbers since i was a child...
they don't seem to make pretty patterns, no matter how i lined them up, but, that single property of being unique, only divisible by itself and one (1), that i like...

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Originally posted by Silverstriker
[b]weird topic alert

Im trying to make a list of fascinating numerical sequences as part of a display in a classroom. I like sequences such as Fibonacci and Triangular sequences but any different ones that people like on here?[/b]
Ask <https://www.youtube.com/user/numberphile>. They've featured quite a few of them.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

I like this formula: RU/18

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Pythagorean triples less than 100:

(3, 4, 5), (5, 12, 13), (7, 24, 25), (8, 15, 17), (9, 40, 41), (11, 60, 61), (12, 35, 37), (13, 84, 85), (16, 63, 65), (20, 21, 29), (28, 45, 53), (33, 56, 65), (36, 77, 85), (39, 80, 89), (48, 55, 73), (65, 72, 97)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Silverstriker
[b]weird topic alert

Im trying to make a list of fascinating numerical sequences as part of a display in a classroom. I like sequences such as Fibonacci and Triangular sequences but any different ones that people like on here?[/b]
What age range are we talking about?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by moonbus
Pythagorean triples less than 100:

(3, 4, 5), (5, 12, 13), (7, 24, 25), (8, 15, 17), (9, 40, 41), (11, 60, 61), (12, 35, 37), (13, 84, 85), (16, 63, 65), (20, 21, 29), (28, 45, 53), (33, 56, 65), (36, 77, 85), (39, 80, 89), (48, 55, 73), (65, 72, 97)
omg!!!
you made me learn something i NEVER knew before!!!
for the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE i know


very little... 😞 😞 😞

https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/pythagorean-triples.html

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rookie54
omg!!!
you made me learn something i NEVER knew before!!!
for the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE i know


very little... 😞 😞 😞

https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/pythagorean-triples.html
Nice site! Did I detect a tiny but noticeable thread of implied sarcasm here?

One thing I wondered about. If Pathags are infinite but a smaller number of the full set of real numbers, doesn't that make the infinity of real numbers bigger than the infinity of Pathags?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
One thing I wondered about. If Pathags are infinite but a smaller number of the full set of real numbers, doesn't that make the infinity of real numbers bigger than the infinity of Pathags?
You go wonky if you try to think about different infinities as being bigger or smaller than other ones. Think of infinities as having characteristics, not 'sizes'; denumerability is an example of a characteristic.

For example, the set of natural numbers (1,2,3,4) can be put into 1:1 correspondence with the set of even numbers (2,4,6,8), which means they are equivalently denumerable -- this is counterintuitive, because one thinks the set of even numbers must be smaller, since all the odd numbers are missing.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
I like this formula: RU/18
Erm... what does it stand for?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nice site! Did I detect a tiny but noticeable thread of implied sarcasm here?

One thing I wondered about. If Pathags are infinite but a smaller number of the full set of real numbers, doesn't that make the infinity of real numbers bigger than the infinity of Pathags?
If by "Pathags" you mean Pythagorean triple numbers... those aren't real numbers in the first place. They're integers.
OK, all integers are also real numbers... but you know what I mean
So the infinity of real numbers is greater than the infinity of members from Pythagorean triples by definition: c is greater than aleph-zero.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Erm... what does it stand for?
So the guy asks the girl he just encounters: R U over 18?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nice site! Did I detect a tiny but noticeable thread of implied sarcasm here?
normally, sarcasm is my goto post...
in this case, i really learned a new thing in my life,
and,
while i cannot yet find a use for it (even in my shop) this is a wonderful bit of knowledge for me...

thanks for asking...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
So the guy asks the girl he just encounters: R U over 18?
Slightly bumpish, but a famous line of Shakespeare can be rendered in symbolic logic: 2 B V 0 2 B

To be or not (naught) to be.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by moonbus
Slightly bumpish, but a famous line of Shakespeare can be rendered in symbolic logic: 2 B V 0 2 B

[hidden]To be or not (naught) to be.[/hidden]
Alternatively, 2b ∨ ¬2b .